/m/history

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Major League Baseball will never be able to make the game clean, so it’s doing the next best thing.

They’re trying to convince the populace that caring about the game being clean is just as good as actually making it clean.

Well, no. What MLB is trying to do is say that even though they can't make the game perfectly clean, they're still trying to make an effort. Which is a perfectly reasonable position - most people find it OK to care about making things better even if they don't have the power to unilaterally, completely solve problems.

#5 Could be. On the other hand, controversial is generally good for the talking heads and honestly there's nothing particularly controversial these days about another, "Maris is the true HR king" article.

#5 Could be. On the other hand, controversial is generally good for the talking heads and honestly there's nothing particularly controversial these days about another, "Maris is the true HR king" article.

I'm thinking that at some point that unless Dirk shuts his mouth he's going to find himself without a job and unemployable at the major league level.

If his desire is to be employed by a Major League team (or its mouthpiece) then yeah, he's headed that direction. My guess is he could find himself in demand at an ESPN, NBCSports or FoxSports1 if he gets punted by the Jays.

There is a risk that someone who is controversial gets too wrapped up in being controversial and forgets to just share an honest viewpoint. It is easy to cross that blurry line between "brutally honest" and "being a broken record" and I think Hayhurst plays on the edge of it (his minor league piece for example felt mailed in and whiny to me). If he can stay on the right side of that approach there are plenty of media outlets out there that would probably love to have him.

well... he did admit to a grand jury that he "unknowingly" took the Cream and the Clear

And the clear (THG) was not illegal at the time Bonds used it. It was added as a Schedule III controlled substance by the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. By the way, Bonds testified on December 4, 2003 to the grand jury.

So we should go after Bonds for using a masking agent for a drug that was not yet deemed illegal under federal law.....what's with that?

So we should go after Bonds for using a masking agent for a drug that was not yet deemed illegal under federal law.....what's with that?

Well, Biogenesis is basically the same thing, right? "The real problem is the coverup... I mean, we can't prove you did anything wrong to begin with, but the real problem is the coverup." It's true Alice in Wonderland logic.

I think it's quite hysterical (in the overreaction sense, not the funny sense) to speculate that people who state that they think Bonds is the "real homerun king" are going to be blackballed and driven out of baseball. Brian Kenny or Joe Posnanski would make this same point more politely. Joe Sheehan would make it less politely, and he works for Sports Illustrated. In all probability, it's going to be much more of a problem for Hayhurst if J.P. Arencibia's comments represent the general clubhouse opinion of him, as opposed to whatever he says about Barry Bonds.

Why would it cost him his job? His comments get tons of hits for Sportsnet, and probably more viewers for the show he is on. I enjoy listening and reading his stuff more than the other commentators. That is exactly what Sportsnet should want.

FYI: Remember, up here in Canada CBC (about as 'politically correct' as it gets) hires Don Cherry (about as far from it as you get) for Hockey Night in Canada due to his saying anything and how that draws in the viewers. Maybe up here things are a bit more open in sports than down there.

He played 25 games over two seasons. I have no idea how many days on the roster that translates to but I'm pretty sure his pension, which isn't going to kick in for another 30 years or so, isn't going to be a whole hell of a lot.

Sportsnet also needs content and it isn't very rare for a company that has a high demand product to be petty. I'm sure Rogers will need permission from MLB to do stuff at some point in the near future.

I'm sure Rogers will need permission from MLB to do stuff at some point in the near future.

Rogers owns the Blue Jays, and are the sole rights-holders for everything MLB in Canada. They ARE MLB. MLB won't stop them from using their own product, so there isn't any threat from MLB that can be used on Rogers.

He played 25 games over two seasons. I have no idea how many days on the roster that translates to but I'm pretty sure his pension, which isn't going to kick in for another 30 years or so, isn't going to be a whole hell of a lot.

He spent almost an entire year on the 60-day DL, and all those days count toward his service time.

I'm not sure where Dirk is seeing the controversy. I, for one, have not looked at any official list of career home runs that Bonds wasn't at the top of. And what's more, all these lists, including the one on mlb.com, give exactly the same number: 762. Imagine that!

That said, I still consider Aaron the home run king. Bonds would have had to beat him by a lot more than seven to make up for the fact that Aaron hit 375 of his in the 1960s.

In a Milquetoast world, becoming a spicy enchilada is sometimes the best route to popularity. There are already too many party line sports writers and commentators, Dirk is making a name for himself and someone like ESPN might like adding a guy to their opinion shows who might be a little rough for most viewers but is extremely popular with some key demographics.

If you're asking who "should be" the all-time home run leader, there is only one answer: the guy with the most, at 762, Barry Bonds.

If you're asking a broader question, "Who is the Home Run King?", then you're asking more about the HR prowess relative to the competition of the time. Ruth, because of the gap between him and virtually every other player of the 1920s, in terms of home runs; and because of the ground-breaking nature of his doing it, is probably the right answer.

However, if you look at the numbers, the best hitter of all time is Ted Williams. You give back the 110 HRs he would've hit during WWII, and another 50 he would've hit during the Korean War, and you are closing in on 700 HRs...at a time when HRs were tough to come by. How good was Williams? Of the 20 highest OPS+ seasons in history (post-1900), eight of them are Ruth (all but one of them between ages 24 and 31), four of them are Bonds (all cluster from ages 35 to 38), four of them are Williams. But unlike the other guys, Williams' seasons on the list are much more spread out. One of his four seasons was at the age of 22...another one was at the age of 38.

My point is, if we're going to discuss "Home Run King" in that sort of sense, you have to put Williams in the conversation, because of the unique combination of extreme performance, plus missing time due to two wars, plus the fact he never missed a beat statistically before and after each interruption in his career.

However, if you look at the numbers, the best hitter of all time is Ted Williams. You give back the 110 HRs he would've hit during WWII, and another 50 he would've hit during the Korean War, and you are closing in on 700 HRs...at a time when HRs were tough to come by. How good was Williams? Of the 20 highest OPS+ seasons in history (post-1900), eight of them are Ruth (all but one of them between ages 24 and 31), four of them are Bonds (all cluster from ages 35 to 38), four of them are Williams. But unlike the other guys, Williams' seasons on the list are much more spread out. One of his four seasons was at the age of 22...another one was at the age of 38.

My point is, if we're going to discuss "Home Run King" in that sort of sense, you have to put Williams in the conversation, because of the unique combination of extreme performance, plus missing time due to two wars, plus the fact he never missed a beat statistically before and after each interruption in his career.

And if you look at the quality of the competition, then Bonds goes right back to the top. That's the beauty of discussions where there are multiple answers to multiple questions and premises that nobody can agree upon.

That's deceptive. There were a LOT of big homer hitters who started in the 20's. The homer was a new offensive tool in the twenties. It took a little while for baseball to catch on. Sort of like the NBA and the 3-pointer. Look at the 3-point shooter numbers in the 80's vs now. Same iwht the homer in baseball in the 20's.

In a Milquetoast world, becoming a spicy enchilada is sometimes the best route to popularity.

Perhaps. The article about minor league all-star vomit certainly had me thinking enchilada. Edginess, like blandness, becomes a broken record of course. I know Dirk has written some quite thoughtful and touching articles as well. I prefer those ones.

"And if you look at the quality of the competition, then Bonds goes right back to the top. That's the beauty of discussions where there are multiple answers to multiple questions and premises that nobody can agree upon."

Also, if you look at the 1156 times Bonds walked more than Aaron; he goes further ahead.

"And if you look at the quality of the competition, then Bonds goes right back to the top. That's the beauty of discussions where there are multiple answers to multiple questions and premises that nobody can agree upon."

Also, if you look at the 1156 times Bonds walked more than Aaron; he goes further ahead.

Well, that doesn't change the home run totals, but it's certainly worth considering when trying to assess any overall offensive value. Obviously these are two entirely separate issues, two out of many.

My point is just that it is possible to regard the HR champion in terms of hr/ab. If you do that it is McGwire, Ruth, Bonds with Aaron nowhere in sight.

That's yet another way of looking at it, one that IIRC Thomas Boswell offered at the time of McGwire's retirement. And it's perfectly valid on its own terms. Of course like all those other ways of looking at the issue, it settles absolutely nothing if it's not the question you're looking to answer.

The majority seem to rather like Wills (and everyone adores Kate) but there's a little more republican sentiment for a post-Liz era.

But Charles ... every single person who has ever expressed their opinion to me hopes against hope that Charles will abdicate in favor of his son. If people were looking at a 30-40 year reign of Charles, there'd be quite strong republican sentiment.

So Bonds is King Charles and he'll never be as loved as Aaron (QE2) and people are pinning their hopes on Chris Davis (William) to steal at least a bit of the true King's power.